The Eisman Campaign released another 'Why can't I debate?' press release today (again without the necessary 'Authorized by' statement).
I have been personally torn on this issue. Yes, he reached the threshold for getting on the ballot, that argues for inclusion.
However, Wisconsin has one of the easiest ballot criteria in the country, so should that be the sole arbiter?
We the People Wisconsin have not invited Eisman to the debate because he can not demonstrate an ability to capture a base percent of the vote (I have heard it set at 5 or 10% in different reports).
I tend to agree with this decision. Why? The debate tonight is set to help people decide the direction of Wisconsin. Our system is set up such that anyone that receives a plurality of votes is the winner.
I do not yet have statewide figures, but Eisman received .3% of the vote in the Winnebago County Gubenatorial primary. I would assume that is equal or better than the state total.
This, along with no statewide polls registering him at 10% or above and, with the average polling showing Green (R) at 41/.7%, Doyle (D) at 47.7% and undecided at 9.3%, there seems to be no mathematical way that Eisman could arrive at 51% of the vote (or, with Wisconsin requiring a plurality to win, 34% if the other 2 split the vote perfectly).
I'm sorry, but I see no compelling reason to include Eisman in the debate.
It is up to Eisman to make himself a valid candidate. It is not up to We the People Wisconsin to do it for him.
It is also up to the Green Party to make an organization that can move enough voters to elect their candidates.
10 comments:
Both Jim Doyle and Mark Green got their name out there without the benefit of tghe debates.
The debates are not a publicity event. They are a time to define the differences between established candidates.
Had Eisman gathered the kind of support that would have gotten him above 0.3% in the primary, he would have every right to be on that stage.
You need to stop blaming your party's and your candidate's lack of support on others.
It is not a question of ideology, it is a question of who has done the work to win the election.
People cast 'hopeless' 3d Party votesa when they feel the big Parties aren't listening...
After watching tonight's debate, I'd suggest Doyle INSIST on Eisman's inclusion in any future debates. He's got to change the dynamic. It'd also be taken by the voters who're considering Eisman, but reluctant to see Green in, as a gesture of good faith. Not so much talking about the Green party faithful here, but the voters who went to Kerry, then Green Party on local races.
Eisman's support is clearly greater than the.03% who voted Green Party in the Primary. I swooped all his voters.
"Money talks and B.S. walks" Ha! that is probably old as the hills but it's new for me. I like it.
Jef, you should quit wasting time "building a case" and then Omigaaaad! I can't beleive it! The only possible conclusion is... Greens suck!
What a surprise. At least from what I've seen Xoff and oother Dem bloggers don't "pretend" to be objective about stuff he already knows he hates. Nobody is fooled by that - just say yer piece straight out.
"Both Jim Doyle and Mark Green got their name out there without the benefit of tghe debates." Holy moly. They "got their names out there" by way of huge sycophantic party mechanisms. The comparison is not apt. Other than apt to make me up-chuck.
You don't come off by any stretch of the imagination as being "on the fence" or in conflict in the least way about the role of the Green Party. You probably have been sitting around hoping they all bought huge freakin' bags of spinach this last week.
Jim Young was in the debates (and that was interseting for non-Greens as well), a precedent has been established. Scaling back now looks either arbitrary or vindictive - neither are good.
Should the Greens concentrate on building a strong undeniable base? Just like you said? Yes, I think so. Fortunately they have the Democrats as their biggest salespersons. People whose needs aren't being met "at home" (the Democratic party) are gonna start shoppin' it around, seeing what else is out there. 'S the way it is, dude.
I haven't seen a poll yet from a media source that includes Eisman, so there is no way to know. Have you?
Jeez, Proletariat. I was just coming here to say that E.C. (Western WI Press Club I guess are the official sponsors) had invited Eisman. You get up too early on Saturday. Oh well at least I can say I can walk to the debate - if there is one - and you can't.
I completely disagree however on your "it's between Doyle and Eisman from now" on remark,I think you're being very unrealistic about that. The republican party would vote for a chimpanzee if that's who they had. Oh wait - they already did that.
There was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. Except a war in Irag, 2,500 dead americans, and more than 100,000 civilians.
Why do you think the Republicans fund Green Party (and Nadar 04) candidates and gather signatures to place them on ballot?
There are plenty of Republicans who believe that the Republican Party is not conservative enough, and would like to leave the party. However, they have figured out that the Constitution created winner take-all districts, and that they can work within the party to push for their goal as the left screws itself. They get it. We don't. Rove will continue to use this wedge which is why many view the Greens (Check dailykos) as a tool of Karl Rove and Bush.
Get over yourselves. Elections are not about validating your feelings. They have real impacts. Good is not the enemy of perfect. I am not sure there have ever been bigger differences between two candidates than Green and Doyle. Wisconsin could go in a totally different direction (TABOR alone) while you are helping Ray Vogel get 3.5%. Make sure to take pictures of the drum circle!
Again, ask yourselves why Republicans donate money to, gather signatures for, and campaign on behalf of Greens and Nadar?
Wow.
I have heard that Green Party folks were 'bitchy' but Anonymous sure levels the playing field.
Great conversation here, and I am glad that Jef Hall has brought it up. A few observations:
-"No difference between Doyle and Green" - there clearly are major and significant differences between them, you heard it here from a Green Party hack - me. Eisman is also different - that is what dialogue is about, discussing differences. But two parties don't seem to want to talk with the third.
-Republicans like Rove and Bush suck. They are immoral, greedy bastards and can kiss my ass. That is why both the Wisconsin Green Party and the Democratic Party of WIsconsin have both called for Impeachment. We are on the same page on this one - and if the Republicans were giving the Wisconsin Green Party money we wouldn't be hurting for cash like we often are. Don't hold the WI-Greens accountable for Pennsylvania, and I won't hold the WI-Dems accountable for Ziegelbauer.
-"Make sure to take pictures of the drum circle!" I take it you are not looking for dialogue, collaboration, or cooperation with bitchy condescending comments like that. Hmm. The local Green Party (Oshkosh area) opted not to run in the 54th Ass. race this year. By choice. A token of friendship if you like so we could spend more quality time around the drum circle. Maybe we should be spending more time fucking up races for you instead of trying to find common ground. I know Jef Hall and Gordon Hintz have both made great pains to reach out and talk to local Greens, maybe you should be their embassador.
-Jef Hall above said: "You need to stop blaming your party's and your candidate's lack of support on others." I agree with Jef completely. Stop blaming Nader for Gore's 2000 victory, stop blaming Palmeri for 2004, and stop blaming your party's and your candidate's lack of support on others.
Two points on Babblemur's last post.
1) You acknowledge that running Greens in races you choose elects Republicans, the previous poster's point.
2)In 2000, the Republicans ran advertisements for Ralph Nader. They viewed his candidacy as helping Republicans, which, when you view the vote totals, it did. We knew if Bush won, we would go to war with Iraq. He did. We did. I think that is why it is hard to get over Nader for some. There have been a lot of bad policies in the past 6 years, but the war messed up history and the whole world really. There were consequences to Nader's candidacy in 2000, that's all.
"1) You acknowledge that running Greens in races you choose elects Republicans, the previous poster's point."
No I didn't.
I was making a sarcastic point to an anonymous comment generalizing all Greens as hippies and obsessing about Nader and the Republicans. What was my point? Irritating insults such as these serve only to further divide Dems and Greens which helps neither party.
In our three state legislative races this year:
1. Larry Harding (Green) is running against a Republican incumbent. There is no Democrat. One did jump into the race on the very last day - but her signatures were challenged and thrown out - by the Republican.
2. Jill Bussiere (Green) challenged a Republican Incumbent BECAUSE there was no Democrat. Charlie Most (Dem) entered the race late in the game knowing a Green would be facing a Republican - does that make him a spoiler?
3. Claude VanderVeen (Green) is challenging a Democrat in a Democratic safe seat.
The one race I regret we didn't challenge is Ziegelbauer's, because that is one Democrat that needs to have his positions, votes, and actions challenged by the people he represents.
As for Nader - I'm tired of repeating this over and over. Nader didn't ruin the election. It was stolen by the Republicans. You have to get over scapegoating Nader for 2000. The Green Party did not nominate him to be their candidate for President in 2004. I don't know what more you expect. We don't have the funding to afford a time machine to allow you to go back and "fix" the situation as you seem to wish you could do. I hope that you can learn to channel your anger at Gore 2000 in a more constructive way then just jabber-jawing about Greens all the time.
Post a Comment